The prolonged political crisis in the Philippines

The prolonged political crisis in the Philippines

Ronald Meinardus, Manila

If there is one ray of light in the protracted political
turmoil besetting the Philippines it is that, thus far, the
situation has remained peaceful. Just how tense things have
become is reflected in a recent statement of a close advisor to
beleaguered President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who told foreign
correspondents that we are "one notch short of getting violent."

With both sides mobilizing their supporters for huge
demonstrations, even a minor incident could turn into a full
blown vicious outburst. Such a violent escalation could, in turn,
become the pretext for the military to step in and restore "law
and order." This, I hasten to add, is a worst case scenario. The
fact that it is hardly debated publicly may indicate that it is
not considered a likely development.

One and a half months after audio tapes surfaced allegedly
showing Arroyo cheated her way into office, the political crisis
in the Philippines has entered a new stage. While in the early
weeks of the turmoil the political momentum for the president to
resign grew, Arroyo's position was stabilized when the Roman
Catholic hierarchy publicly stated it would not join the clamor
and the military also refrained from getting involved.
Considering the very negative mood earlier, the neutrality of two
key players blew new life into the besieged presidency.

Still, the political crisis is far from settled. There is a
general feeling that the country has entered a period of a drawn
out political stalemate. While the supporters of the president
maintain Arroyo will never resign, her opponents claim she has
lost the moral and the political authority to govern.

Once more, Philippine politics is extremely polarized. How one
perceives the president has become the single most important
issue, transcending established ideological and partisan
allegiances. "Churches, officials in government, men in uniform,
the business community, teachers, students, and even families are
divided," said a former member of the Arroyo cabinet who resigned
recently.

With more or less all major political forces having opted for
one or the other camp, voices of compromise are scarce -- and
hardly heard. This, too, makes an amicable solution difficult and
improbable.

Today, many public debates focus on the question why the
present situation is different from 1986 and 2001, two defining
dates in Philippine history, when massive demonstrations led to
the downfall of presidents considered unfit to run the nation by
major sectors of society. In both people power uprisings (as they
have come to be known) the Roman Catholic hierarchy and
eventually also the armed forces joined the movement thereby
tipping the balance in favor of the demonstrators.

Arguably, the most important difference today is that the
public has shown little if any inclination to go to the streets
in large numbers. For many left leaning Filipino intellectuals
who tend to idealize the popular protests of the past, this
people power fatigue is a painful disappointment. The people's
passivity challenges the widespread perception that in the end of
the day the masses will take their destiny into their own hands.

Filipinos seem to have learned their lesson. Few would argue
today that the two previous revolts led to an improvement of the
quality of their lives. Many would even say, and empirical data
justifies their claim, that their situation has worsened.

A recent opinion poll conducted by a reputable survey
institute revealed how fed-up the people are with being sent to
the streets by political agitators. When the Social Weather
Stations (SWS) published its findings, the local media focused on
the falling trust ratings of the president. Equally newsworthy I
found the result that only two individuals out of more than 500
respondents opted for "people power."

There are indications that the political conflict will return
to the halls of Congress, from where ideally it should never have
left in the first place. Following initial hesitation, the
opposition seems willing to impeach the president. This is a
reasonable option, as it is constitutional, and importantly,
gives the accused president a chance to defend herself. It may be
expected that the president will repeat her claim that she did
nothing illegal or even criminal.

Her supporters will argue that while speaking to an official
of the Commission of Elections (Comelec) may be morally
objectionable, it is a common practice in this land. "There has
been no candidate who hasn't called the Comelec to ensure that
his votes didn't disappear during the counting or in transport,
given the amount of cheating that goes on during every election,"
wrote a commentator who is known for her support of the
president.

While friends and foes of Arroyo will probably always disagree
who should lead this country, they agree that the current
political system is in dire need of radical reform. The president
herself came out with the revealing and also incriminating remark
that "our political system has degenerated to such an extent that
it is very difficult to move within the system with hands totally
untainted."

In the midst of the crisis, various political sectors have
come out with proposals aimed at remedying the situation. A
consensus is evolving that the Philippines is in need of a new
constitution. Among the formulas proposed is to transform the
present presidential system to a parliamentary and federal form
of government.

One influential proponent even suggests that the new
constitution should be ready as soon as next February so that the
people may decide on it in a plebiscite. Considering the
seriousness of the endeavor, any such haste seems inappropriate.
At the same time this hurriedness is unrealistic. One condition
for constitutional change is a basic consensus among the major
political forces.

The assumption that this consensus may be achieved any time
soon is wishful thinking. As long as major political players
question the legitimacy of the president, the political stalemate
in the Philippines will continue.

The writer is the resident representative of the Friedrich
Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and a commentator on Asian
affairs. He can be reached at liberal@fnf.org.ph